Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study relating to administrative costs.
Description: This bill requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to study and report on ways to insure the solvency of the Social Security program while protecting current benefits. In its study, the SSA must address lowering administrative costs of the program and investigate means testing, flat benefits, and basing benefits on lifelong labor earnings.
Sponsors: Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals dependent on Social Security programs
Estimated Size: 70000000
- The bill pertains to the Social Security Administration, which affects all individuals who are Social Security beneficiaries or future beneficiaries.
- The study focuses on administrative costs, which affects the allocation of SSA resources and could indirectly impact beneficiaries if resource reallocation impacts service delivery.
- Means testing, flat benefits, and changes based on lifelong labor earnings could result in changes to how benefits are calculated and distributed, impacting current and future beneficiaries' financial wellbeing.
- If successful, changes could affect the sustainability and availability of resources for beneficiaries long-term.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals who are currently receiving or expect to receive Social Security benefits in the future, including retirees, individuals with disabilities, and low-income workers.
- The policy's focus on administrative costs and benefits restructuring means direct impacts will revolve around the stability and calculability of future benefits for these individuals.
- Due to budget restrictions, the policy is not expected to implement any considerable changes immediately but might inform long-term adjustments that benefit large segments of the population.
- Individuals with low lifetime earnings might be most affected by the proposed changes in benefit calculations.
- Commonality in the population varies as the demographic includes a wide range of ages and socioeconomic statuses, from current retirees to future beneficiaries relying on potential support.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (Florida)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about any reduction in benefits.
- Hopes the policy can secure long-term stability of Social Security.
- Worried about potential impacts of means testing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
factory worker (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about retirement security.
- Supports actions that ensure Social Security viability.
- Neutral about administrative cost reductions as long as service is not impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
retired engineer (California)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Welcomes studies to ensure Social Security's future.
- Worried about how means testing might affect benefits.
- Believes some administration costs could be cut without harming user services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
non-profit worker (New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Nervous about future benefits with erratic past earnings.
- Needs assurance that her benefits will remain intact as projected.
- Supports policies that stabilize Social Security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
self-employed artisan (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports exploration of more equitable benefit distribution.
- Wants assurance of fair disability coverage.
- Worried about cuts to future benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
nurse (Michigan)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Would like early retirement with secured benefits.
- Supports balancing administrative costs if it supports benefit security.
- Worried about changes affecting expected benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
construction worker (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about means testing reducing potential benefits.
- Supports measures that increase system integrity without cuts to benefits.
- Believes that flat rate benefits could disadvantage him.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
software developer (Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Wants clarity on long-term Social Security viability.
- Fine with restructuring if it means longer term benefits stability.
- Believes administrative cost cuts should focus on non-core services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
retired salesperson (North Carolina)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Needs assurance that policy changes will protect current benefits.
- Concerned with means testing and how it's applied.
- Supports system sustainability efforts if they don't impact benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
retired government employee (Arizona)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports any study aiming to preserve Social Security.
- Skeptical of benefit alteration through means tests.
- Believes careful balance is needed to prevent loss of current benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The study's impact largely hinges on its findings and subsequent legislative or administrative actions based on its recommendations.
- Any identified savings are speculative until concrete policy changes are outlined and implemented.
- Implementation of means testing or flat benefits could face political and public resistance, influencing the scope and duration of impact.